8 Junior Colleges are Merging? Rumors or Reality?
-
jetsetter:
Frankly, I dunno who the people making noises are. Some are parents with kids in JCs attended by Ministers' kids, i.e. they are from top JCs like VJC or NJC. They themselves were non-alumni of any of the 28 affected schools, unless they otherwise admit in this forum. As far as I know, only 2 KGMs have mentioned they were from AJC and while they lamented about the merger and possible slide in COP, they aren't going to petition or do anything at all. Other noisemakers aren't teachers or staff from the affected schools it seems.
Should be NCM.lee_yl:
[quote=\"zbear\"]
Perhaps some parents should start questioning the MOE Minister, BTW, which Minister is responsible?
Seriously, I am surprised that such big decisions were not communicated before implementation. Reading the news yesterday, it's obvious the affected teachers are unhappy n worried for their rice bowls (especially the older ones ) even though MOE kept assuring that they will not lose their jobs, Full of BS, I will say!!!
Not surprising, nowadays, for many policies, the government doesn't think they need to get the buy in from the various stake holders. Echoes of the recent 30% increase in water charges which was only announced during the Budget Speech.
The decision to close/merge so many JCs at one go is operationally efficient (almost like a surgical strike in military terms) but there are ramifications in many other areas such as the morale of the teachers and students (and their parents) and misgivings from the general public. Speculation on MOE's motives is rife because MOE did not properly communicate and engage the public about their plans in the first place.
The hardcopy ST covers a lot more stories on the mergers. Most netizens jumped at the dribs and drabs because they obtained snippets from forums (sometimes backdated ST links or blocked links because you're limited to 15 ST online articles per month!) but actually I get a better picture and more balanced perspective after reading the hardcopy news articles like Zaobao and ST. For instance, I didn't get the impression the teachers were disgruntled. Perhaps they were but were muted by media. But at least from ST report, I know the Singapore Teachers' Union is already working in concert with affected teachers on the transition.
Likewise, from ST hardcopy, I learnt that while JJC alumni were sad that their 30yo JC is going to go down in history, they have come to terms with the merger and will be engaging alumni on the merger at a meeting next month and has already started collecting feedback from them, including asking for ideas on how the new JC’s identity can be shaped.
I'm also baffled why some altruistic champions of lower income/late bloomers aren't sticking their necks out for those affected primary and secondary schools, but only those 8 JCs.
Some of the affected primary schools have a longer history （Shuqun Pri School 1925; Da Qiao Pri Sch 1936; ) than the new and under-subscribed JCs. I found out from Zaobao article that Macpherson Primary School was Chan Chun Sing's alma mater. Even the Minister's alma mater wasn't spared in this mass merger.
http://origin-www.channel8news.sg/news8/singapore/20170421-sg-schools-merger/3695934.html
Why aren't the noisemakers kicking up a big fuss over these heritage pri schools? Why take aim at EJC whose brandnew campus was already agreed upon during the JIP negotiations among stakeholders and alumni, and cast in stone/rubber-stamped in the blueprint some 8-10 years ago, i.e. before this current rookie minister decided to merge the 8 non-IP JCs? I think it's unfair to take aim at EJC because the students have already been sensible and magnanimous enough to occupy the temp campus in Mount Sinai for 2 years after the outcry in 2015.
If the parents of those 8 JCs are so upset (or some crusaders with no vested interests in any of the 28 schools), they should muster their courage to write in to the Minister, start a petition or Meet their MP to express their grievances, like the parents of those 3 heritage schools of EJC. MOE sat up to engage the stakeholders, because the immediate stakeholders cared enough to take ownership of their case to voice out their concerns through proper channels.
However, I don't see any alumni of those affected JCs taking ownership to start any petition or write to MOE at all. They seem ok that their / DC's lower-tier JCs are being merged and shut down. Why? Either they have no pride of, no affinity to those under-subscribed govt JCs and secondary schools or they are just 'empty vessels' in a public forum, unlike those EJC indept/govt-aided school stakeholders 2 years ago. Who's going to bother with you if you are too ashamed to fight for your alma mater? :slapshead:[/quote]You have summarized the issues so well. Dont mind i post it in the other thread -
Schools come, schools go. Some merge, some disappear. I think most people have learnt to move on (and if you have not, time to get in touch with reality). Education institutes are not permanent in the landscape.
Primary schools, secondary schools, JCs (new for JCs but isn’t exactly new for post-sec or Pre-U or central institutions), vocational institutes (Baharuddin anyone?), university (Nantah?).
One day it may be the polys turn as well. -
jetsetter:
There's really no reason for AJC alumni to be upset cos, as I see it, AJ is just a 'collateral damage' - a result of MOE's preference for using 'merging' over 'closing down' (SRJC in this case). Since you need at least 2 JCs to 'merge', AJ was picked (perhaps because it happens to be geographically nearest to SR?)
As far as I know, only 2 KGMs have mentioned they were from AJC and while they lamented about the merger and possible slide in COP, they aren't going to petition or do anything at all.
What I fail to understand is, why had they not foreseen the decline in student enrollment and proceeded to open 2 more JCs (InnovaI and Meridian) in the early 2000s? Back then, baby bonus had already been introduced, indicating govt was already aware of our declining birth rates. And if the objective was to increase proportion of U grads, it could always increase the intake from polys, couldn't it?
It's waste of money/resources to build JC facilities only to have it closed some years later. Just like what they did with that Budget Terminal at Changi. -
jetsetter:
Frankly, I dunno who the people making noises are. Some are parents with kids in JCs attended by Ministers' kids, i.e. they are from top JCs like VJC or NJC. They themselves were non-alumni of any of the 28 affected schools, unless they otherwise admit in this forum. As far as I know, only 2 KGMs have mentioned they were from AJC and while they lamented about the merger and possible slide in COP, they aren't going to petition or do anything at all. Other noisemakers aren't teachers or staff from the affected schools it seems.
Should be NCM.lee_yl:
[quote=\"zbear\"]
Perhaps some parents should start questioning the MOE Minister, BTW, which Minister is responsible?
Seriously, I am surprised that such big decisions were not communicated before implementation. Reading the news yesterday, it's obvious the affected teachers are unhappy n worried for their rice bowls (especially the older ones ) even though MOE kept assuring that they will not lose their jobs, Full of BS, I will say!!!
Not surprising, nowadays, for many policies, the government doesn't think they need to get the buy in from the various stake holders. Echoes of the recent 30% increase in water charges which was only announced during the Budget Speech.
The decision to close/merge so many JCs at one go is operationally efficient (almost like a surgical strike in military terms) but there are ramifications in many other areas such as the morale of the teachers and students (and their parents) and misgivings from the general public. Speculation on MOE's motives is rife because MOE did not properly communicate and engage the public about their plans in the first place.
The hardcopy ST covers a lot more stories on the mergers. Most netizens jumped at the dribs and drabs because they obtained snippets from forums (sometimes backdated ST links or blocked links because you're limited to 15 ST online articles per month!) but actually I get a better picture and more balanced perspective after reading the hardcopy news articles like Zaobao and ST. For instance, I didn't get the impression the teachers were disgruntled. Perhaps they were but were muted by media. But at least from ST report, I know the Singapore Teachers' Union is already working in concert with affected teachers on the transition.
Likewise, from ST hardcopy, I learnt that while JJC alumni were sad that their 30yo JC is going to go down in history, they have come to terms with the merger and will be engaging alumni on the merger at a meeting next month and has already started collecting feedback from them, including asking for ideas on how the new JC’s identity can be shaped.
I'm also baffled why some altruistic champions of lower income/late bloomers aren't sticking their necks out for those affected primary and secondary schools, but only those 8 JCs.
Some of the affected primary schools have a longer history （Shuqun Pri School 1925; Da Qiao Pri Sch 1936; ) than the new and under-subscribed JCs. I found out from Zaobao article that Macpherson Primary School was Chan Chun Sing's alma mater. Even the Minister's alma mater wasn't spared in this mass merger.
http://origin-www.channel8news.sg/news8/singapore/20170421-sg-schools-merger/3695934.html
Why aren't the noisemakers kicking up a big fuss over these heritage pri schools? Why take aim at EJC whose brandnew campus was already agreed upon during the JIP negotiations among stakeholders and alumni, and cast in stone/rubber-stamped in the blueprint some 8-10 years ago, i.e. before this current rookie minister decided to merge the 8 non-IP JCs? I think it's unfair to take aim at EJC because the students have already been sensible and magnanimous enough to occupy the temp campus in Mount Sinai for 2 years after the outcry in 2015.
If the parents of those 8 JCs are so upset (or some crusaders with no vested interests in any of the 28 schools), they should muster their courage to write in to the Minister, start a petition or Meet their MP to express their grievances, like the parents of those 3 heritage schools of EJC. MOE sat up to engage the stakeholders, because the immediate stakeholders cared enough to take ownership of their case to voice out their concerns through proper channels.
However, I don't see any alumni of those affected JCs taking ownership to start any petition or write to MOE at all. They seem ok that their / DC's lower-tier JCs are being merged and shut down. Why? Either they have no pride of, no affinity to those under-subscribed govt JCs and secondary schools or they are just 'empty vessels' in a public forum, unlike those EJC indept/govt-aided school stakeholders 2 years ago. Who's going to bother with you if you are too ashamed to fight for your alma mater? :slapshead:[/quote]Mmmm, are you saying that CCS is too ashamed to fight for his alma mater? :pokeeye:
Not only does he not send his children to Macpherson Primary School, he also didn't oppose its closure :siam: -
mum_sugoku:
I am willing to give MOE the benefit of the doubt. Early 2000s is already 10-15 yrs ago? Maybe they hoped that the baby bonus etc might increase the no. of births. Haven't we all made mistakes based on forecasts which didn't turn out the way we expected, with all the best will and research available to us? Hindsight is always 20-20.What I fail to understand is, why had they not foreseen the decline in student enrollment and proceeded to open 2 more JCs (InnovaI and Meridian) in the early 2000s? Back then, baby bonus had already been introduced, indicating govt was already aware of our declining birth rates. And if the objective was to increase proportion of U grads, it could always increase the intake from polys, couldn't it?
It's waste of money/resources to build JC facilities only to have it closed some years later. Just like what they did with that Budget Terminal at Changi. -
slmkhoo:
I agree with you . Me thinks too the govt would have already notice the pop decline trend but chose to wait to see if the numerous baby incentives will reverse the downward trend. I do not think it was a knee jerk reaction....it was probably a slow realization that despite whatever initatives, the pop decline trend is not going to reverse any time soon.
I am willing to give MOE the benefit of the doubt. Early 2000s is already 10-15 yrs ago? Maybe they hoped that the baby bonus etc might increase the no. of births. Haven't we all made mistakes based on forecasts which didn't turn out the way we expected, with all the best will and research available to us? Hindsight is always 20-20.mum_sugoku:
What I fail to understand is, why had they not foreseen the decline in student enrollment and proceeded to open 2 more JCs (InnovaI and Meridian) in the early 2000s? Back then, baby bonus had already been introduced, indicating govt was already aware of our declining birth rates. And if the objective was to increase proportion of U grads, it could always increase the intake from polys, couldn't it?
It's waste of money/resources to build JC facilities only to have it closed some years later. Just like what they did with that Budget Terminal at Changi. -
slmkhoo:
They should've been more prudent in their long term planning to prevent unnecessary waste of resources.
I am willing to give MOE the benefit of the doubt. Early 2000s is already 10-15 yrs ago? Maybe they hoped that the baby bonus etc might increase the no. of births. Haven't we all made mistakes based on forecasts which didn't turn out the way we expected, with all the best will and research available to us? Hindsight is always 20-20.mum_sugoku:
What I fail to understand is, why had they not foreseen the decline in student enrollment and proceeded to open 2 more JCs (InnovaI and Meridian) in the early 2000s? Back then, baby bonus had already been introduced, indicating govt was already aware of our declining birth rates. And if the objective was to increase proportion of U grads, it could always increase the intake from polys, couldn't it?
It's waste of money/resources to build JC facilities only to have it closed some years later. Just like what they did with that Budget Terminal at Changi.
It's taxpayers' money after all. -
thsheng99:
I agree with you . Me thinks too the govt would have already notice the pop decline trend but chose to wait to see if the numerous baby incentives will reverse the downward trend. I do not think it was a knee jerk reaction....it was probably a slow realization that despite whatever initatives, the pop decline trend is not going to reverse any time soon.[/quote]Doesn't it mean they have no proper contingency plan? 'Never mind, assume baby bonus scheme works, build first, if it fails, then just close them down.'
I am willing to give MOE the benefit of the doubt. Early 2000s is already 10-15 yrs ago? Maybe they hoped that the baby bonus etc might increase the no. of births. Haven't we all made mistakes based on forecasts which didn't turn out the way we expected, with all the best will and research available to us? Hindsight is always 20-20.slmkhoo:
[quote=\"mum_sugoku\"]What I fail to understand is, why had they not foreseen the decline in student enrollment and proceeded to open 2 more JCs (InnovaI and Meridian) in the early 2000s? Back then, baby bonus had already been introduced, indicating govt was already aware of our declining birth rates. And if the objective was to increase proportion of U grads, it could always increase the intake from polys, couldn't it?
It's waste of money/resources to build JC facilities only to have it closed some years later. Just like what they did with that Budget Terminal at Changi. -
floppy:
when birth rate continues to fall, the polytechnics will be next to merge.
One day it may be the polys turn as well.
Ngee Ann Poly - Clementi
Singapore Poly - Dover
Temasek Poly - East
Republic Poly - Woodlands
Nanyang Poly - AMK -
mum_sugoku:
Doesn't it mean they have no proper contingency plan? 'Never mind, assume baby bonus scheme works, build first, if it fails, then just close them down.'
The JCs were in use for more than 10 yrs, which is not too bad, I would think. They aren't tearing them down, but do have plans to use the buildings for other purposes. If they hadn't built, then there would have been fewer JC places for the past decade or so, and they would probably have been criticised for that too?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login